Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can someone tell me what law the leaker broke? [View all]Ocelot II
(130,696 posts)10. It isn't illegal; it's against the rules of the Supreme Court.
Just hours after Politico published a draft of the majority ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito calling the Roe decision "egregiously wrong from the start" and overruling that five-decade-old precedent, figures across the right issued a chorus of calls for the investigation and prosecution of the anonymous source of the "illegal" leak. CBS News went so far as to reportsomewhat vaguelythat it expects an investigation involving the FBI into the leak's source. And Chief Justice John Roberts has opened an investigation into the disclosure.
But all of that furor is undermined by an inconvenient legal truth: Leaking a Supreme Court decision doesn't actually seem to be a crimeat least not by any clear and undisputed definition. "Right now, it's unclear whether the leaker broke any law at all," says Trevor Timm, a First Amendmentfocused lawyer and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "Even the people claiming this act is beyond the pale and the FBI must investigate haven't pointed to a definitive law this leaker allegedly broke."
Timm cites a lengthy Twitter thread published late Monday by the well-known UC Berkeley legal scholar Orin Kerr, who responded to the leak Monday night by pointing out that a Supreme Court draft doesn't meet any of the obvious criteria that would make it an illegal document to hand to a journalist: Most important, it's not classified, so leaking it doesn't open the leaker to prosecution under the Espionage Act. "As far as I can tell, there is no federal criminal law that directly prohibits disclosure of a draft legal opinion," Kerr concluded.
https://www.wired.com/story/scotus-roe-v-wade-opinion-leak-legal-risk/
But all of that furor is undermined by an inconvenient legal truth: Leaking a Supreme Court decision doesn't actually seem to be a crimeat least not by any clear and undisputed definition. "Right now, it's unclear whether the leaker broke any law at all," says Trevor Timm, a First Amendmentfocused lawyer and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "Even the people claiming this act is beyond the pale and the FBI must investigate haven't pointed to a definitive law this leaker allegedly broke."
Timm cites a lengthy Twitter thread published late Monday by the well-known UC Berkeley legal scholar Orin Kerr, who responded to the leak Monday night by pointing out that a Supreme Court draft doesn't meet any of the obvious criteria that would make it an illegal document to hand to a journalist: Most important, it's not classified, so leaking it doesn't open the leaker to prosecution under the Espionage Act. "As far as I can tell, there is no federal criminal law that directly prohibits disclosure of a draft legal opinion," Kerr concluded.
If the document were obtained by illegal means, as by hacking into a computer system, that might be prosecutable, but it doesn't appear that the leaking itself was illegal. So far the FBI is not involved; the court is conducting an internal investigation. The leaker, if discovered, will surely be fired, but probably not prosecuted.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The issue in that case was trading on government information for financial gain.
Ocelot II
May 2022
#19
It's all meant to distract from the larger issue that we have a right-wing radical Supreme Court
TheRealNorth
May 2022
#4
I'm certain one of the terms of employment is non-disclosal of privileged communications
Bucky
May 2022
#22
What we know about the investigation into the Supreme Court leak-What Crime is at play
LetMyPeopleVote
May 2022
#27
These IDIOTS want to go after someone, (in the SC) that leaked the TRUTH. yet
bluestarone
May 2022
#28